The case involved Sundancer Pools, Inc. seeking a tax refund based on the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) under the CARES Act for the second and third quarters of 2021, after the IRS disallowed the credit for those periods despite allowing it for earlier quarters. The company claimed its business operations building pools and spas were partially suspended due to COVID-19 government orders and related costs. The government moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the complaint did not allege facts showing a qualifying suspension caused by government orders. The court found that the allegations, taken as true, failed to establish that operations were fully or partially suspended or that any suspension was proximately caused by qualifying government orders, but deferred ruling to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff Dawn Unga-Stick filed a pro se action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of $29,373 in alleged overpaid federal taxes for the 2021 tax year, though attached exhibits referenced payments from 2022. The government moved for a more definite statement due to the inconsistency, and the court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint clarifying the tax year by a set deadline and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute. After the plaintiff missed two extended deadlines despite additional warnings, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The case involved Black & Loans, LLC bringing a lawsuit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. After the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for noncompliance with RCFC 83.1(a)(4), the plaintiff stated it would not comply with the rule and agreed that dismissal was appropriate under RCFC 41(b). The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff had amended its complaint as of right prior to the dismissal, but this filing did not alter the outcome.
This case involves a class action by advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs who alleged they performed uncompensated overtime work monitoring time-sensitive patient notifications. The plaintiffs claimed that the VA induced this overtime but violated 38 U.S.C. §§ 7453(e)(1) and 7454(a) by failing to pay overtime rates for hours that were officially ordered or approved. The government argued that the work did not qualify because it lacked express advance or after-the-fact approval by an authorized official as required by the VA Handbook. Relying on the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Lesko v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government's renewed motion for summary judgment, holding that overtime performed on or after August 3, 2017, was not compensable without such express authorization.
This case involves a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act seeking compensation for injuries and death allegedly caused by a flu vaccine administered in September 2020. The petitioner, as administrator of David Taylor's estate, alleged that the vaccine caused Guillain-Barré syndrome, which aggravated preexisting conditions and led to his death in December 2020. The Chief Special Master awarded compensation for the GBS injury but dismissed the death benefit claim as untimely because it was not filed within 24 months of death under Section 16(a)(3) of the Act. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for review, concluding that the statute imposes a 24-month deadline from the date of death for all vaccine-related death claims and that the additional 48-month limit tied to symptoms or aggravation does not create an alternative filing window.
The case involved Rice Services, Inc.'s challenge in the Court of Federal Claims to the Department of the Army's decision to override an automatic stay imposed by the Competition in Contracting Act on a task order award for cook and dining facility services at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Rice had filed a protest at the Government Accountability Office against the award to KBR Services, LLC, and argued that the Army's override findings—based on best interests of the United States and urgent and compelling circumstances—were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The court denied Rice's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government's cross-motion, concluding that the Army's determinations were reasonable and supported by the record regarding the need for efficient staffing at the Cadet Mess. The court also rejected claims that the Army's actions lacked candor or improperly affected competition.